Talk:French Revolution and David/@comment-24423803-20140213052703
6) Can Paine's republicanism be confined to one place or nation? The short answer to this, as Paine would have it, is no. But in that answer there are a few presuppositions of Paine's that betray his (actually rather obvious) bias, that bias namely being that Paine really, really loves republicanism. As I mentioned, really obvious. Although this creates some issues in his ideas, it doesn't, in fact, alter the validity of his claims that republicanism has a tendency to spread and seize "monarchical soverignty, the enemy of mankind." What'' does'' is failure in practice, and we can look at how that comes about. Paine views republicanism as the end-all political model, the perfect practice of which ensures stability and cannot breed revolution. As he says on page 92 of Rights of Man, "In principles of republicanism, there is nothing to throw a Nation into confusion by flaming ambition." He derives these principles (also found on page 92) from the revolutions in France and America, and sees in them univeral truths (and we all know how suspect those are, but I digress). Clearly then, for Paine's republicanism to be carried out, these two nations should, naturally, embody those principles in practice as well as they do in theory. Being that's it's only 1791, there's time yet, so before we look at the nations' practice, let's first look at how Paine thinks republicanism should natually spread. Being that Paine's republicanism in theory perfectly liberates man from the tyranny of monarchy, Paine cites the radical upheaval it has now caused in two states, to rousing success (only 1791!), as an "enlightenment" of mankind. With this new image of government, the old image becomes obsolete, and people will naturally flock to the representative form that acknowledges their natural liberties from the sovereign form that aristocratic form that conspires to hold them hostage. Republicanism spreads by being such a better alternative to the monarchy, simply put, and Paine puts so much faith in the ideals behind it that he views this process as an inevitable step in the continued "prosperity of nations." This isn't without merit, as those ideals, and the reasoning behind them, are certainly not ill-proposed--and to call them a better alternative to despotic rule is an understatement. The issue, as I have said, comes about in the practice, and this makes answering the question in terms of Paine's own definition of republicanism difficult. According to Paine's own definition, republicanism is not only the better alternative, it is the best alternative. Therefore it should naturally spread wherever man is limited by government--in Paine's eye, everywhere ''there is monarchy. Of course, this depends on a people dissatisfied with monarchy--something the English people, for example, worked out a century prior, ''keeping their monarchy (much to Paine's chagrin, naturally). But most importantly, it hinges on the republics Paine cites actually representing his ideals. ''In fact, in Paine's perfect model, America and the French revolutionaries would be perfect allies, as their shared ideals of republicanism could lead to a world of peace and prosperity. But America was notoriously divided and chose ''not to support the revolution, indicating that somewhere in Paine's model, something broke down. And without even going into what the French Revolution would become...it's safe to say that if Paine's republicanism cannot be restricted to a single nation, it has yet to be put into true practice.